So I'm back with more tales from the warrior front. As I mentioned in my last post before my laptop went down, patch 4.0.1 revitalized my interest in the game by turning my warrior alt from a joke to a force to be reckoned with, one who can take down red-colored-level monsters and complete red-colored quests with ease. What was once something of a burden has become fun; so fun, in fact, that I didn't want to stop playing my warrior. Killing things became so fun that I started to resent any break in the process, including needing to go to a capital city to learn my new moves. It was when I realized that this was the case that I was a bit shocked; after all, isn't leveling up the whole point of the leveling process? Why was I suddenly not looking forward to hitting those levels?
I remember that back before patch 4.0.1 made leveling a warrior fun, I looked forward to each time I leveled up. I would count the little bars in my experience bar and watch them fill, waiting anxiously for that time when I would see that golden light. Though all levels gave me a bit of a rush, the even ones especially were the ones I looked forward to, for that was when I would get my new abilities. But more than that, each of those levels represented something I had accomplished, something I had worked for. Leveling at the lower levels was usually not that fun, and each time I leveled up, it was like the game was telling me, "You should feel satisfied with what you have accomplished." And I did, and thus, though the leveling process was a pain, it was worth it for the sense of satisfaction I felt upon ascending to each new level.
Now, however, things are different (for me, at least). As I play my warrior, I don't watch the experience bar at all; I've been taken by surprise by that golden light quite a few times, in fact. And while the odd levels are met with joy (I do get to spend a talent point, after all), the even levels are met with less enthusiasm, since I have to go out of my way to learn whatever new ability I get at those levels. In other words, as I play my warrior now, leveling up is merely incidental to the leveling process; it's just another event that happens along the way. And it has become that way because the leveling process is now exciting in its own right, because this class is finally fun to play.
But now I'm a bit jaded, because I have experienced the contrast between playing for the objective statistical rewards and playing in spite of them. I have experienced the contrast between playing the game for the end result and playing the game for the sake of playing the game, and I'm not sure I could go back to the former. To put this in terms that might be more familiar to people who don't level alts frequently, the difference I have experienced is like the different between running a raid because you want to say you killed that boss or because you want the loot upgrades they drop, and running a raid because you enjoy raiding. One mode of play is motivated by the end-result, the other is motivated by the playing itself, and that's what I'm experiencing on my warrior now.
After experiencing this shift in mode of play, I realized that much of the time I have spent playing WoW has been spent in results-oriented mode. Most of the heroics I ran were motivated by the emblems that dropped and the gear that could be obtained with them. Most of the alts I leveled were leveled so that I could experience playing them once they got their better abilities and became fun, but I ended up leveling even the few that I managed to get that far for the sake of that flash of golden light. Maybe that's why I was never able to get into raiding; I was there for the experience, not the loot, the achievements, or the bragging rights, so I had nothing to motivate me to gloss over the things I found tedious or frustrating about the whole process.
So what does that mean in the larger scheme of things? Well, for me, it means I have become skeptical of many of the rewards we get for playing and their purpose in the game. By a metaphorical show of hands, how many of you would play WoW if there were no gear, no leveling up, no achievements, etc.; just the gameplay? Some of you would, I'm sure, so the other question is, how long would you play a game like this? Would you have raided ICC for ten months (going on eleven) if the gear weren't there to motivate you or to pace your progress? Maybe you would have; I won't make any assumptions, I'm just presenting these questions as food for thought.
But where am I going with this? Truth be told, I'm not sure myself; this mode of playing WoW is so new to me that I'm still getting a feel for it, for its nuances and consequences. I suppose the only thing I can say for now is that, though levels, gear currency, achievements, and gear itself might serve larger purposes within the game, they should be incidental to the gameplay itself. They should be there as conveniences and game mechanics, not as motivators to play. When they do become players' reasons to play, that's a sign that the gameplay itself isn't enough to keep people playing, and that says to me that the game just isn't fun.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
My top 15 favorite video games of all time. Part 1: 15-6
A turn of events that took place over the course of this weekend lead me to consider what my favorite video games of all time are, and since I am at a lack of topics to write about that I don't want to save for another day of the week (considering my posting schedule) I decided to write about my favorite video games of all time here. I have been a long time video gamer, since the days when the original Playstation and the Nintendo 64 were the big consoles on the block, and thus I have a lot of good memories relating to games. The best, though, are the ones detailed below. These are the games I played and replayed, learned all the secrets of, sometimes completed, and just thoroughly enjoyed. Think of this as a spiritual sequel to my lists of my top 25 favorite songs and my top 5 favorite movies. To answer the inevitable question, WoW is very high on this list, but it is not number one.
15. Super Mario Sunshine
This is an interesting entry. You see, I was pretty young when I first played Super Mario 64, which many consider to be one of the best games of all time, so my memories of that game aren't as vivid as my memories of Super Mario Sunshine. That said, my memories that I do have of Super Mario 64 aren't as fond as my memories of Super Mario Sunshine, so I don't feel guilty putting it on the list instead. Super Mario Sunshine was one of the first games I ever played on the GameCube, and it is still one of the games I remember best. The atmosphere alone made it a great game, for the game took place on a tropical island paradise. The environments, the characters, the music, they were all designed to support the feeling that the game took place in tropical get-away. It worked so well that even after I had beaten the game, I enjoyed just exploring the environments, seeing what I hadn't seen before, finding the little secrets of the game, because playing this game actually felt like going away on a vacation. The gameplay was also very fun, with the FLUDD (Mario's water-squirting accessory) adding a new dimension to the game's already fun Super Mario 64-based control mechanics. It was just a joy to play, simply put.
14. Super Smash Bros Melee
Suffice it to say that I have a lot of good memories associated with playing this game with friends. My character of choice was Sheik, and I got quite good at her. In addition to playing the regular melee mode, I also enjoyed a game some of my friends and I would play on Venom, where we would restrict ourselves to one side of the stage and fight each other only by throwing Pokéballs on the other person's side, which were set to spawn often. Before Rock Band came around, this was the party game among my friends, and the one that motivated me to buy my three additional GameCube controllers. Considering that the fun to be had in this game was mostly based on the interpersonal interactions it created, it's hard to pin down what made it such a great game, but it was certainly one of my favorites. Don't get me wrong, I like Brawl too, but Melee will always hold a special place in my heart.
13. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Like Super Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker is a game that is often overshadowed by an installment in the series that came before it: Ocarina of Time, considered by many to be the best game ever. That it may be, and while I did enjoy playing it, it was another one of those games that I was pretty young when I first played, so it didn't stick in my mind as much as Wind Waker, which I played later. But I digress; Wind Waker was a great game because of its art design and it's scope. I know the cartoony art design was a polarizing facet of the game, but I thought it brought a lightness to game's overall tone that prevented it from getting too serious. It's scope was also huge in that the game took place on the open ocean, with the major actions taking place on the islands in the ocean. There was a lot to be found between these islands, and the art and music made traversing the ocean a joy, rather than a pain. It was also the first Zelda game to feature a sword fight with Ganondorf (the series' main villain) as its final boss. How can you go wrong with that?
12. Animal Crossing
A rather unique game, Animal Crossing had no obvious completion requirements, and was a game where you largely had to make your own fun. Of course, the game gave you multitudes of ways to do that, from fishing to decorating your house to changing the landscaping of the town. It was nice change of pace from games where there was pressure to do something specific; in Animal Crossing, you did what you wanted to do. The fact that the town changed with the year also gave the game a nice flair to it. Like Super Mario Sunshine, this was a game where you felt like you had been transported to another world, a more relaxing world where you wouldn't mind spending a few hours.
11. Tales of Symphonia
This was an interesting game: an action-RPG with a story that could get convoluted at times, but certainly kept me invested in the game. But what made the game great was its gameplay, which combined RPG and action-game aspects beautifully to create something that was just plain fun. The fact that the random encounters were also somewhat avoidable, depending on your skill at avoiding them (it was something you became practiced with) was also an appreciated aspect of the game. Like Wind Waker, this game was especially massive in its scope, and you didn't truly appreciate that until you got the means to fly through the overworld. Once that option was open to you, you realized just how big of a world there was out there to explore, and there were plenty of reasons to explore it, too, from bonus bosses to bonus storylines that told you more about your characters. Definitely not a game for everyone, but I certainly enjoyed it.
10. Metroid: Zero Misson
A remake of the classic NES title Metroid, brought up to date with improved controls, items that had become mainstays of the series, and an expanded world to fit it all into. This game was everything I loved about the game Metroid Fusion and more, with more precise controls, a better sense of progression, and a faster pace. There was also a lot of potential for sequence breaking in this game, and I sequence broke the hell out of it, skipping items and bosses for fun, but usually using the sequence breaking to get items early, making challenging parts of the game easy. I must have played through this game dozens of times, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out I played through it almost a hundred times. It's just a great game, and probably the hand-held game I enjoyed the most.
9. Pokémon Gold Version
Who doesn't have fond memories of their first Pokémon game? Pokémon Gold Version was one of my first games, as well as the game that taught me the mainstays of the RPG genre: random encounters, leveling up, elemental weaknesses, those damn slippery floor puzzles where you could only move in the four cardinal directions, you kept moving until you hit something, and you had to find the exact path through (did anyone really enjoy that?). My dedication to this game was such that I had a level 89 Meganium (the final evolution of the starter pokemon I picked), who took down Red, the game's final boss, on his own. It's hard to pin down exactly what I liked about this game, because I played it so long ago, but I know I enjoyed it.
8. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
All of the Metal Gear Solid games hold a special place in my heart (except the fourth, but only because I haven't played it yet), for the three Metal Gear Solid games are the only video games that have ever made me cry. The third was no exception, and though I won't spoil what plot twist made me cry, suffice it to say it was a good one, and thinking about it still brings a tear to my eye. It was also a very fun game, with the camouflage mechanic complimenting the stealth mechanics the series is known for very well. However, it is not the original Metal Gear Solid 3 I place on this list, but the remake. Why? Because the remake took the series' typical horrible camera and replaced it with a significantly better one, one you could actually control and move to make exploring your surroundings easier, making the whole experience much more fun.
7. Metroid Prime
The Metroid franchise's jump into 3D was a risky move that could have gone wrong in many ways, but Retro studios did a fantastic job with this game. The combat is fun, the world is beautiful and expansive, and the little tidbits of lore provided by the scan visor really make the whole experience very immersive. What's nice about the way the plot is revealed through the scan visor is that it means that you never experience more of the plot than you want to. If you just want the action without any backstory, you can have that by just not scanning anything. If you want every little detail of the world around, then just scan everything and you'll get that. The game also boasts impressive graphics, even by today's standards, and a higher frame-rate than most games I have played, which is a pet pleasure of mine.
6. Sypro the Dragon (the original trilogy)
Spyro 2 was my first video game, and this series was my first video game obsession. I completed all three of these games way back when and enjoyed every minute of them. Granted, I may be wearing rose-tinted glasses due to my age at the time, but I really just loved these games. The platforming was superb, the obsessive pursuit of every last gem in every level kept me coming back until I had finished the game, and the characters were downright entertaining (to my young mind, at least). It's a game that will probably always be locked in the vaults of nostalgia for me, but hey, maybe that's a good thing.
Due to time constraints and to avoid this post becoming too long, I'm going to stop it here and save entries 5-1 for next week. So stay tuned for My top 15 favorite video games of all time, Part 2: Revenge of the Rhythm Games next week.
15. Super Mario Sunshine
This is an interesting entry. You see, I was pretty young when I first played Super Mario 64, which many consider to be one of the best games of all time, so my memories of that game aren't as vivid as my memories of Super Mario Sunshine. That said, my memories that I do have of Super Mario 64 aren't as fond as my memories of Super Mario Sunshine, so I don't feel guilty putting it on the list instead. Super Mario Sunshine was one of the first games I ever played on the GameCube, and it is still one of the games I remember best. The atmosphere alone made it a great game, for the game took place on a tropical island paradise. The environments, the characters, the music, they were all designed to support the feeling that the game took place in tropical get-away. It worked so well that even after I had beaten the game, I enjoyed just exploring the environments, seeing what I hadn't seen before, finding the little secrets of the game, because playing this game actually felt like going away on a vacation. The gameplay was also very fun, with the FLUDD (Mario's water-squirting accessory) adding a new dimension to the game's already fun Super Mario 64-based control mechanics. It was just a joy to play, simply put.
14. Super Smash Bros Melee
Suffice it to say that I have a lot of good memories associated with playing this game with friends. My character of choice was Sheik, and I got quite good at her. In addition to playing the regular melee mode, I also enjoyed a game some of my friends and I would play on Venom, where we would restrict ourselves to one side of the stage and fight each other only by throwing Pokéballs on the other person's side, which were set to spawn often. Before Rock Band came around, this was the party game among my friends, and the one that motivated me to buy my three additional GameCube controllers. Considering that the fun to be had in this game was mostly based on the interpersonal interactions it created, it's hard to pin down what made it such a great game, but it was certainly one of my favorites. Don't get me wrong, I like Brawl too, but Melee will always hold a special place in my heart.
13. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker
Like Super Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker is a game that is often overshadowed by an installment in the series that came before it: Ocarina of Time, considered by many to be the best game ever. That it may be, and while I did enjoy playing it, it was another one of those games that I was pretty young when I first played, so it didn't stick in my mind as much as Wind Waker, which I played later. But I digress; Wind Waker was a great game because of its art design and it's scope. I know the cartoony art design was a polarizing facet of the game, but I thought it brought a lightness to game's overall tone that prevented it from getting too serious. It's scope was also huge in that the game took place on the open ocean, with the major actions taking place on the islands in the ocean. There was a lot to be found between these islands, and the art and music made traversing the ocean a joy, rather than a pain. It was also the first Zelda game to feature a sword fight with Ganondorf (the series' main villain) as its final boss. How can you go wrong with that?
12. Animal Crossing
A rather unique game, Animal Crossing had no obvious completion requirements, and was a game where you largely had to make your own fun. Of course, the game gave you multitudes of ways to do that, from fishing to decorating your house to changing the landscaping of the town. It was nice change of pace from games where there was pressure to do something specific; in Animal Crossing, you did what you wanted to do. The fact that the town changed with the year also gave the game a nice flair to it. Like Super Mario Sunshine, this was a game where you felt like you had been transported to another world, a more relaxing world where you wouldn't mind spending a few hours.
11. Tales of Symphonia
This was an interesting game: an action-RPG with a story that could get convoluted at times, but certainly kept me invested in the game. But what made the game great was its gameplay, which combined RPG and action-game aspects beautifully to create something that was just plain fun. The fact that the random encounters were also somewhat avoidable, depending on your skill at avoiding them (it was something you became practiced with) was also an appreciated aspect of the game. Like Wind Waker, this game was especially massive in its scope, and you didn't truly appreciate that until you got the means to fly through the overworld. Once that option was open to you, you realized just how big of a world there was out there to explore, and there were plenty of reasons to explore it, too, from bonus bosses to bonus storylines that told you more about your characters. Definitely not a game for everyone, but I certainly enjoyed it.
10. Metroid: Zero Misson
A remake of the classic NES title Metroid, brought up to date with improved controls, items that had become mainstays of the series, and an expanded world to fit it all into. This game was everything I loved about the game Metroid Fusion and more, with more precise controls, a better sense of progression, and a faster pace. There was also a lot of potential for sequence breaking in this game, and I sequence broke the hell out of it, skipping items and bosses for fun, but usually using the sequence breaking to get items early, making challenging parts of the game easy. I must have played through this game dozens of times, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out I played through it almost a hundred times. It's just a great game, and probably the hand-held game I enjoyed the most.
9. Pokémon Gold Version
Who doesn't have fond memories of their first Pokémon game? Pokémon Gold Version was one of my first games, as well as the game that taught me the mainstays of the RPG genre: random encounters, leveling up, elemental weaknesses, those damn slippery floor puzzles where you could only move in the four cardinal directions, you kept moving until you hit something, and you had to find the exact path through (did anyone really enjoy that?). My dedication to this game was such that I had a level 89 Meganium (the final evolution of the starter pokemon I picked), who took down Red, the game's final boss, on his own. It's hard to pin down exactly what I liked about this game, because I played it so long ago, but I know I enjoyed it.
8. Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence
All of the Metal Gear Solid games hold a special place in my heart (except the fourth, but only because I haven't played it yet), for the three Metal Gear Solid games are the only video games that have ever made me cry. The third was no exception, and though I won't spoil what plot twist made me cry, suffice it to say it was a good one, and thinking about it still brings a tear to my eye. It was also a very fun game, with the camouflage mechanic complimenting the stealth mechanics the series is known for very well. However, it is not the original Metal Gear Solid 3 I place on this list, but the remake. Why? Because the remake took the series' typical horrible camera and replaced it with a significantly better one, one you could actually control and move to make exploring your surroundings easier, making the whole experience much more fun.
7. Metroid Prime
The Metroid franchise's jump into 3D was a risky move that could have gone wrong in many ways, but Retro studios did a fantastic job with this game. The combat is fun, the world is beautiful and expansive, and the little tidbits of lore provided by the scan visor really make the whole experience very immersive. What's nice about the way the plot is revealed through the scan visor is that it means that you never experience more of the plot than you want to. If you just want the action without any backstory, you can have that by just not scanning anything. If you want every little detail of the world around, then just scan everything and you'll get that. The game also boasts impressive graphics, even by today's standards, and a higher frame-rate than most games I have played, which is a pet pleasure of mine.
6. Sypro the Dragon (the original trilogy)
Spyro 2 was my first video game, and this series was my first video game obsession. I completed all three of these games way back when and enjoyed every minute of them. Granted, I may be wearing rose-tinted glasses due to my age at the time, but I really just loved these games. The platforming was superb, the obsessive pursuit of every last gem in every level kept me coming back until I had finished the game, and the characters were downright entertaining (to my young mind, at least). It's a game that will probably always be locked in the vaults of nostalgia for me, but hey, maybe that's a good thing.
Due to time constraints and to avoid this post becoming too long, I'm going to stop it here and save entries 5-1 for next week. So stay tuned for My top 15 favorite video games of all time, Part 2: Revenge of the Rhythm Games next week.
Monday, October 18, 2010
No new posts until my laptop is fixed [Updated x2]
Update: (10/24/10, 12:02 PM): My laptop is back up and running, but the harddrive had to be replaced for it to work again. I had some things backed-up, but not everything, and the result is that it will take me a long time to get it back in its original state. That combined with my schedule for this weekend means no new post on Monday, but barring any more unexpected events, I'll be back to posting on Wednesday; I promise.
Update (10/20/10, 6:12 PM): The situation isn't looking much better unfortunately, and my laptop will be out of commision until at least Friday, when I can take it in to be repaired. Until then, I still won't be able to post new posts, mostly because all of the things I have been doing trying to fix my laptop have been eating into the time I would have spent writing, and this week is also a really busy one for me. Those two things combined have prevented me from being able to write, and will prevent me from being able to write a post in time for Friday. So for now, the blog remains static.
Original Post: I'll spare you the exposition and flowery language common to my blog posts. My laptop is having issues that have put it out of commission for a few days, and I am currently writing this post on a computer at my university's library. I would like to think that I could continue writing consistently here, but without easy access to a computer, I don't know whether I'll be able to keep up with the usual writing habits necessary to write my blog posts in the time it takes me to write them. (And the keyboards are very loud here. I don't know if I could stand writing three posts a week on these things.) Thus, until my laptop is fixed, I'm putting a halt on any new posts. Since I can still access my e-mail on my iPod touch and can still do things on this library's computer, I should still be able to respond to comments, but even with that, I make no promises. To give you a time frame, as I understand the situation now, I should be able to have my laptop up and running in a few days. If that isn't the case, I'll post another post to let you know. Until then, play on and live well, my readers.
Update (10/20/10, 6:12 PM): The situation isn't looking much better unfortunately, and my laptop will be out of commision until at least Friday, when I can take it in to be repaired. Until then, I still won't be able to post new posts, mostly because all of the things I have been doing trying to fix my laptop have been eating into the time I would have spent writing, and this week is also a really busy one for me. Those two things combined have prevented me from being able to write, and will prevent me from being able to write a post in time for Friday. So for now, the blog remains static.
Original Post: I'll spare you the exposition and flowery language common to my blog posts. My laptop is having issues that have put it out of commission for a few days, and I am currently writing this post on a computer at my university's library. I would like to think that I could continue writing consistently here, but without easy access to a computer, I don't know whether I'll be able to keep up with the usual writing habits necessary to write my blog posts in the time it takes me to write them. (And the keyboards are very loud here. I don't know if I could stand writing three posts a week on these things.) Thus, until my laptop is fixed, I'm putting a halt on any new posts. Since I can still access my e-mail on my iPod touch and can still do things on this library's computer, I should still be able to respond to comments, but even with that, I make no promises. To give you a time frame, as I understand the situation now, I should be able to have my laptop up and running in a few days. If that isn't the case, I'll post another post to let you know. Until then, play on and live well, my readers.
Friday, October 15, 2010
How did we put up with this for so long?
There are a lot of negative things I could say about patch 4.0.1. I could talk about Warlocks losing the names of pets that they have had since long ago, names they grew attached to, before a bug took them away (but that's going to be fixed, anyways). I could talk about how atrocious I find the new tree of life model, but time and accepting that I'm probably done healing on my druid has turned my abhorrence into utter indifference. I've already talked about the loss of tree of life as a permanent form, so no point in belaboring that point. Of course, the fiasco of post-4.0.1 class balance is a topic rife with discussable points, but I can't be angry about any of these things. I can't be angry about them because of the changes this patch has made to my warrior alt.
You see, I rolled my little warrior (currently residing at level 25; he was level 22 when the patch hit) as a way to enjoy this game before Cataclysm comes out, but leveling him was a very trying process. Heroic strike, the ability we were supposed to use while fighting one-on-one, consumed so much rage that using Thunder Calp, an ability meant for AoE combat, was actually more rage efficient, even against one enemy. Of course, this meant the damage of a low level warrior was incredibly sub-par, for there weren't many other abilities I could use to increase my damage. I could use Rend, a damage over time ability; Overpower, which I could only use after one of my attacks was dodged, i.e. not all that frequently; and Victory rush, which I could only use once per battle, anyways. In short, at low levels, warriors lacked the abilities they needed to be viable in one-on-one combat.
With patch 4.0.1, however, that all changed. My warrior went from level 22 to 25 (granted, I was two bars away from 23 when 4.0.1. hit) probably as quickly as he went from 21 to 22 thanks to the new move set he has. What you might not know if you've only been following the level-cap changes in patch 4.0.1 is that this patch brought with it changes to how and when we learn abilities at low levels. We only need to learn an ability once, after which it scales as we level. Because of this, Blizzard spread out the rate at which we learn new abilities, so that we have more to learn at higher levels than we would if they had kept it the same. In the process, they reevaluated the order in which we learn abilities and shifted it a bit. This was also the patch where they changed the nature of our abilities. What this all adds up to is that, thanks to the new (new for my level, at least) and improved abilities this patch gave my lowly warrior, he is suddenly viable in combat and--dare I say... fun.
Yes, I said it... ok, I really implied it, but I'll say it now: leveling as a warrior was just not fun in the 1 to 22 range before this patch. Having abilities that weren't viable sitting unused on my bar while using abilities that weren't meant for the situation I was in because the abilities that were meant for the situation I was in were practically useless wasn't fun. Now, all of a sudden, leveling as a fury warrior actually feels like playing a berserker. We have a lot more rage now, thanks (I think) to the rage normalization, and we have abilities that we actually want to spend that rage on. Playing as a fury warrior in low levels is now a frenzy of trying to use the abilities available to you as quickly as possible, since you actually have the rage to do so, rather than an exercise in waiting for Thunder Clap to come off its cooldown and hoping you have enough rage to use it when it does.
So why am I gushing about the new playstyle of low-level fury warriors? Well, after playing as my warrior for an hour or two last night; after surviving a battle against seven enemies of my level, all attacking me at once, when four doing the same thing could have easily done me in before the patch; I had to ask myself: why did we put up with the absolutely terribad playstyle of low level warriors for so long? In fact, I'm sure warriors aren't the only class whose low-level play has been vastly improved by this patch, so I have to ask; why did we put up with bad low level playstyles for so long?
Well, part of the answer is that many people didn't. I know quite a few players who hate the leveling process, and the way some classes play at low levels played no small part in their hatred of that part of the game. Of course, alt-aholics like me really had no choice other than putting up with the bad low-level content, hoping it would be worth it with the higher level content. Part of it could be the idea that we are somehow earning our fun, that the bad low-level playstyle is the price we have to pay to get to the more fun playstyle. That idea is reinforced by the idea that any sort of bad experience we go through makes us able to better appreciate the good experiences we go through, a truism I have often heard in real life.
It could also have something to do with a little condition called learned helplessness. The idea of learned helplessness is that if we accept that we have no control over a situation, it causes us to accept the misery that situation brings upon us, even if a way out is presented. There wasn't a lot we could do to improve the playstyle of classes that were not at all fun to play while leveling, other than not leveling those classes, so those of us who wanted to level those classes just had to accept that the early levels were going to be unenjoyable. (And boy were they. Priests? Paladins? Warriors? Druids? I'm looking at you.) So we gritted our way through those early levels, because we had no other choice if we wanted to get to the part where the classes become fun to play (and I can tell you from personal experience that priests and druids got much more fun to play as you approach the later levels).
Could it really be that bad, though? Could us hopeless alt-aholics really be suffering from the same condition that keeps battered spouses and depressed people in their predicaments? As the blog post I linked to mentions, when someone suffering from learned helplessness does get out of their situation, they often have a hard time committing to anything afterward, and tend to continue believing in nihilism and futility, rather than having hope and being optimistic. When I first logged in to my warrior, I had my doubts about whether he would be any more fun to play, but I gave it a try anyways. As you can tell, I was blown away once I did, but the important thing was whether I hesitated at all. Well, I did find it a bit tedious to need to go to the trainer and learn new moves, and viewed rearranging my action bar with the same weary view. In fact, that fact that I started playing again after rearranging my abilities doesn't really do much to disprove the learned helplessness theory, because I still expected playing to not be all that enjoyable; the surprise came from the fact that I enjoyed play my warrior, not from the fact that I did, in fact, play him. Thus I was engaging in old behaviors with the same kind of futile outlook; all that changed was the result.
So perhaps we alt-aholics who braved our way through the early levels of the unfun classes did suffer from learned helplessness, but patch 4.0.1 is here now, here to liberate us from the previous doldrums of the early levels. Along with this forced liberation comes the force relocation (metaphorically speaking) to a much more fun game design; in other words, we are being flat-out prevented from going back to the situation that caused our learned helplessness in the first place. We have been forced into our escape, forced into a more hopeful situation, and though we might not have been cured of that helplessness, at least we have been saved in spite of it. What this means for the future of low-level playing and us alt-aholics, though, remains to be seen.
You see, I rolled my little warrior (currently residing at level 25; he was level 22 when the patch hit) as a way to enjoy this game before Cataclysm comes out, but leveling him was a very trying process. Heroic strike, the ability we were supposed to use while fighting one-on-one, consumed so much rage that using Thunder Calp, an ability meant for AoE combat, was actually more rage efficient, even against one enemy. Of course, this meant the damage of a low level warrior was incredibly sub-par, for there weren't many other abilities I could use to increase my damage. I could use Rend, a damage over time ability; Overpower, which I could only use after one of my attacks was dodged, i.e. not all that frequently; and Victory rush, which I could only use once per battle, anyways. In short, at low levels, warriors lacked the abilities they needed to be viable in one-on-one combat.
With patch 4.0.1, however, that all changed. My warrior went from level 22 to 25 (granted, I was two bars away from 23 when 4.0.1. hit) probably as quickly as he went from 21 to 22 thanks to the new move set he has. What you might not know if you've only been following the level-cap changes in patch 4.0.1 is that this patch brought with it changes to how and when we learn abilities at low levels. We only need to learn an ability once, after which it scales as we level. Because of this, Blizzard spread out the rate at which we learn new abilities, so that we have more to learn at higher levels than we would if they had kept it the same. In the process, they reevaluated the order in which we learn abilities and shifted it a bit. This was also the patch where they changed the nature of our abilities. What this all adds up to is that, thanks to the new (new for my level, at least) and improved abilities this patch gave my lowly warrior, he is suddenly viable in combat and--dare I say... fun.
Yes, I said it... ok, I really implied it, but I'll say it now: leveling as a warrior was just not fun in the 1 to 22 range before this patch. Having abilities that weren't viable sitting unused on my bar while using abilities that weren't meant for the situation I was in because the abilities that were meant for the situation I was in were practically useless wasn't fun. Now, all of a sudden, leveling as a fury warrior actually feels like playing a berserker. We have a lot more rage now, thanks (I think) to the rage normalization, and we have abilities that we actually want to spend that rage on. Playing as a fury warrior in low levels is now a frenzy of trying to use the abilities available to you as quickly as possible, since you actually have the rage to do so, rather than an exercise in waiting for Thunder Clap to come off its cooldown and hoping you have enough rage to use it when it does.
So why am I gushing about the new playstyle of low-level fury warriors? Well, after playing as my warrior for an hour or two last night; after surviving a battle against seven enemies of my level, all attacking me at once, when four doing the same thing could have easily done me in before the patch; I had to ask myself: why did we put up with the absolutely terribad playstyle of low level warriors for so long? In fact, I'm sure warriors aren't the only class whose low-level play has been vastly improved by this patch, so I have to ask; why did we put up with bad low level playstyles for so long?
Well, part of the answer is that many people didn't. I know quite a few players who hate the leveling process, and the way some classes play at low levels played no small part in their hatred of that part of the game. Of course, alt-aholics like me really had no choice other than putting up with the bad low-level content, hoping it would be worth it with the higher level content. Part of it could be the idea that we are somehow earning our fun, that the bad low-level playstyle is the price we have to pay to get to the more fun playstyle. That idea is reinforced by the idea that any sort of bad experience we go through makes us able to better appreciate the good experiences we go through, a truism I have often heard in real life.
It could also have something to do with a little condition called learned helplessness. The idea of learned helplessness is that if we accept that we have no control over a situation, it causes us to accept the misery that situation brings upon us, even if a way out is presented. There wasn't a lot we could do to improve the playstyle of classes that were not at all fun to play while leveling, other than not leveling those classes, so those of us who wanted to level those classes just had to accept that the early levels were going to be unenjoyable. (And boy were they. Priests? Paladins? Warriors? Druids? I'm looking at you.) So we gritted our way through those early levels, because we had no other choice if we wanted to get to the part where the classes become fun to play (and I can tell you from personal experience that priests and druids got much more fun to play as you approach the later levels).
Could it really be that bad, though? Could us hopeless alt-aholics really be suffering from the same condition that keeps battered spouses and depressed people in their predicaments? As the blog post I linked to mentions, when someone suffering from learned helplessness does get out of their situation, they often have a hard time committing to anything afterward, and tend to continue believing in nihilism and futility, rather than having hope and being optimistic. When I first logged in to my warrior, I had my doubts about whether he would be any more fun to play, but I gave it a try anyways. As you can tell, I was blown away once I did, but the important thing was whether I hesitated at all. Well, I did find it a bit tedious to need to go to the trainer and learn new moves, and viewed rearranging my action bar with the same weary view. In fact, that fact that I started playing again after rearranging my abilities doesn't really do much to disprove the learned helplessness theory, because I still expected playing to not be all that enjoyable; the surprise came from the fact that I enjoyed play my warrior, not from the fact that I did, in fact, play him. Thus I was engaging in old behaviors with the same kind of futile outlook; all that changed was the result.
So perhaps we alt-aholics who braved our way through the early levels of the unfun classes did suffer from learned helplessness, but patch 4.0.1 is here now, here to liberate us from the previous doldrums of the early levels. Along with this forced liberation comes the force relocation (metaphorically speaking) to a much more fun game design; in other words, we are being flat-out prevented from going back to the situation that caused our learned helplessness in the first place. We have been forced into our escape, forced into a more hopeful situation, and though we might not have been cured of that helplessness, at least we have been saved in spite of it. What this means for the future of low-level playing and us alt-aholics, though, remains to be seen.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
A photo-tribute to Tree of Life
Well, it looks like patch 4.0.1 will be playable some time around today, give or take a day for unforeseen additional maintenance. As you already know, this patch, for me, marks the end of an era: the end of Tree of Life as a permanent form. The comments section for that post tells me I'm not the only one mourning the loss of this beloved form, so I thought it would be appropriate to put together a photo-tribute to the tree. I do this not only to pay my respects, but because this may very well be the last time I see a tree outside of a group, for patch 4.0.1 may mark the end of my time as a druid healer. I'm with Tesh when he/she (sorry, Tesh, but I dont want to make any assumptions) said, "Shapeshifting is the point of Druids for me. I almost never spend time in caster form; if I wanted that, I'd have played a Shaman. " Well spoken, Tesh; well spoken.
So, without further ado, let's move on to the tribute.
A druid in his natural habitat: Moonglade.
A lucky screenshot of the tree's idle animation. You can't plan this one.
"Should I or shouldn't I?"
Did you know that Tree of Life has a swim animation? Neither did I. Most trees don't do so well in water, but apparently ours does.
I can't tell whether he's waving hello after making it across the lake, or goodbye. I'd like to believe it's the former...
Guess he just found out...
One last goodbye to the home zone of druids.
The tree enjoys one last dance...
R.I.P. Tree of Life form, December 5, 2006 to October 12, 2010. You will be sorely missed.
So, without further ado, let's move on to the tribute.
A druid in his natural habitat: Moonglade.
A lucky screenshot of the tree's idle animation. You can't plan this one.
"Should I or shouldn't I?"
Did you know that Tree of Life has a swim animation? Neither did I. Most trees don't do so well in water, but apparently ours does.
I can't tell whether he's waving hello after making it across the lake, or goodbye. I'd like to believe it's the former...
Guess he just found out...
One last goodbye to the home zone of druids.
The tree enjoys one last dance...
Before giving in to his fate.
R.I.P. Tree of Life form, December 5, 2006 to October 12, 2010. You will be sorely missed.
Monday, October 11, 2010
The obligations we create for ourselves
Not many of my non-blogging friends (which comprises the entirety of friend-base, save for one person who I never talk to outside of social networking sites) quite get the whole blogging thing. The idea that I have set out a schedule for myself (three posts a week, Monday/Wednesday/Friday, six a.m.) that I do my damnedest to stick to seems to boggle them, for they can't see how these obligations I have set out for myself could be so worth sticking to. It's quite similar to WoW, actually, in that many non-players probably view the obligations raiders have to their raid groups in a similar way. Those doubtful onlookers probably wonder why we take our obligations so seriously when they are involving something that is, after all, just a game. (Yeah, about that...) But since that isn't the topic I want to discuss today, I'll summarize my thoughts on raid obligations by saying that no matter what it is concerning, a promise made to someone else is a promise, and breaking that promise is no less significant because the promise concerned a game, be it a digital game or otherwise.
But back on the topic of bloging, just like raiding, sometimes we can burn ourselves out while blogging, and we may feel the need to take a break. A certain favorite blogger of mine had to do just that recently, and when she came back from her break, she announced she'd probably be limiting her posting to once a week. This is quite a big shift for a blog that had previously posted four to five times a week, but considering that her posts often rival/exceed my posts in length, I can't say I'm surprised. I personally limited myself to three times a week because I knew I'd need that time, and more than a year later, it's a choice I'm glad I made. But it made me think: the posting habits we have set up what our readers expect from our blog, turning fulfilling those expectations into a sort of obligation. What I wondered was, is it ok to go back on that obligation? Is it acceptable to reduce the frequency with which we post when our readers have come to expect us to post with a certain level of frequency?
It may seem like a silly question to ask. After all, if we have a legitimate reason for reducing our posting frequency (time constraints, blogging cutting into other areas of ones life, a desire to get back into old hobbies, etc.), shouldn't it be a no-brainer that balance comes first? I wish it were easy to say yes, but I often find that behind their attractive wording, questions like that are often based on the assumption that blogging (or whatever the hobby in question is) should always take a backseat to our other obligations. I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but considering the parallels between blogging about WoW and playing it, imagine if you told someone you were spending too much time playing WoW and wanted to cut back a bit. While they might encourage you for doing so in the name of balance in your life, they would probably really be encouraging you do so because they think that WoW should never take precedent over any other activity (let us not forget the stigma that still surrounds MMOs).
Perhaps the best place to look for a precedent on this kind of issue is the raiding scene, which, as I mentioned, has quite a few parallels with the blogging scene. In the raiding communities I've been in and the ones I know about second-hand from my raiding friends, taking a break from the game can bring about a mixed bag of emotions. In the more friendly guilds I've been in or known about, people are happy for those who want to take a break, since it shows that those people know they need to reevaluate their priorities. In the more cutting edge guilds I've heard about, though, someone taking a break can be a bit more of an issue. In those guilds, raiders are harder to replace due to the higher standards those guilds hold their members to, so when a guild member takes a break, I often sense a bit of hostility or resentment in conversation about him. I often get the idea that his fellow raiders feel abandoned because of his absence. So in short, it seems that how acceptable it is to take a break from WoW or to reduce one's frequency of play all depends on the company one keeps in-game
How can we apply this to blogging? I suppose the best way to answer the question of whether it's acceptable to reduces one's frequency of blogging is to look at the readership one has garnered. If you garnered your readership based on your frequency of posting and little more, then by posting less frequently, you are reducing the biggest draw of your blog, taking what made your blog appealing away from those readers. In that case, it's understandable for them to stop reading. But if it's your insight, your interaction with your readers, or anything else that primarily draws readers to your blog, then as long as reducing the frequency of your posting won't take away from any of those draws, then I see no issue with it, for they probably won't, either. And in the end, only two entities matter in all things blogging: the blogger, and the readership, and if both are ok with the blogger posting less frequently, then there is no issue.
But back on the topic of bloging, just like raiding, sometimes we can burn ourselves out while blogging, and we may feel the need to take a break. A certain favorite blogger of mine had to do just that recently, and when she came back from her break, she announced she'd probably be limiting her posting to once a week. This is quite a big shift for a blog that had previously posted four to five times a week, but considering that her posts often rival/exceed my posts in length, I can't say I'm surprised. I personally limited myself to three times a week because I knew I'd need that time, and more than a year later, it's a choice I'm glad I made. But it made me think: the posting habits we have set up what our readers expect from our blog, turning fulfilling those expectations into a sort of obligation. What I wondered was, is it ok to go back on that obligation? Is it acceptable to reduce the frequency with which we post when our readers have come to expect us to post with a certain level of frequency?
It may seem like a silly question to ask. After all, if we have a legitimate reason for reducing our posting frequency (time constraints, blogging cutting into other areas of ones life, a desire to get back into old hobbies, etc.), shouldn't it be a no-brainer that balance comes first? I wish it were easy to say yes, but I often find that behind their attractive wording, questions like that are often based on the assumption that blogging (or whatever the hobby in question is) should always take a backseat to our other obligations. I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but considering the parallels between blogging about WoW and playing it, imagine if you told someone you were spending too much time playing WoW and wanted to cut back a bit. While they might encourage you for doing so in the name of balance in your life, they would probably really be encouraging you do so because they think that WoW should never take precedent over any other activity (let us not forget the stigma that still surrounds MMOs).
Perhaps the best place to look for a precedent on this kind of issue is the raiding scene, which, as I mentioned, has quite a few parallels with the blogging scene. In the raiding communities I've been in and the ones I know about second-hand from my raiding friends, taking a break from the game can bring about a mixed bag of emotions. In the more friendly guilds I've been in or known about, people are happy for those who want to take a break, since it shows that those people know they need to reevaluate their priorities. In the more cutting edge guilds I've heard about, though, someone taking a break can be a bit more of an issue. In those guilds, raiders are harder to replace due to the higher standards those guilds hold their members to, so when a guild member takes a break, I often sense a bit of hostility or resentment in conversation about him. I often get the idea that his fellow raiders feel abandoned because of his absence. So in short, it seems that how acceptable it is to take a break from WoW or to reduce one's frequency of play all depends on the company one keeps in-game
How can we apply this to blogging? I suppose the best way to answer the question of whether it's acceptable to reduces one's frequency of blogging is to look at the readership one has garnered. If you garnered your readership based on your frequency of posting and little more, then by posting less frequently, you are reducing the biggest draw of your blog, taking what made your blog appealing away from those readers. In that case, it's understandable for them to stop reading. But if it's your insight, your interaction with your readers, or anything else that primarily draws readers to your blog, then as long as reducing the frequency of your posting won't take away from any of those draws, then I see no issue with it, for they probably won't, either. And in the end, only two entities matter in all things blogging: the blogger, and the readership, and if both are ok with the blogger posting less frequently, then there is no issue.
Friday, October 8, 2010
It's so hard to say goodbye: Tree of Life
I thought I'd be over it by now. I thought the pain, the sadness, the grieving would have come to an end, but I just couldn't accept it, and I still haven't. When patch 4.0 hits, I really don't know whether I'll be able to enjoy all of the great new additions, because of one little hitch: Tree of Life. I know the point has long run its course. I know this discussion has been held before, and has probably been done to death in every conceivable venue where it can be discussed. I know that those who don't share the sadness of those who will miss this form will probably roll their eyes at this post. But I can't help it, because this blog is a receptacle for my feelings about WoW, and right now, my feelings are those of sadness at the loss of this form.
You might be wondering, if this blog is just a receptacle for my feelings about WoW, then why do I advertise it as a blog where I look at WoW from a philosophical perspective? I do that because most of my thoughts on this game tend to wax philosophical. But take a look at the subtitle of my blog: "The lengthy ramblings of a World of Warcraft player who happens to be into philosophy." I promise nothing about consistently writing about philosophy, but I try to do that as often as possible, because that's the draw I try to give this blog. But right now, I can't wax philosophical, because the grief I feel about tree form is just too great. I suppose I'm going through the depression stage of grief. I've been through the denial stage ("They would never make a change like that; that's just preposterous, and not at all like our class."), the anger stage ("Gah! Why! Argh!"), and the bargaining stage ("Can't they try to improve Nature's Swiftness? Then we'd have a good cooldown and wouldn't have to lose our form."), and now I'm in the depression stage. Perhaps I can move on to acceptance before patch 4.0 hits. Until then, allow me a bit of catharsis in today's post.
If you're wondering why these emotions are coming out now, you can thank Allison Robert, a writer for WoW Insider, whose recent column about the upcoming changes to druids--which was organized in sections by our forms; i.e., it had a "the bear" section, a "the cat" section--included this heading:
The tree
A moment of silence, please.
And I bowed my head, for I am still sad to see this form go. I don't think my first post on the subject did a good enough job of explaining why I feel this way, but then again, I was probably still in denial back then. Maybe now, now that my kvetching can't do anything to change Blizzard's mind, now that everyone's probably over the subject, now that my self-deprecating introduction is probably getting on your nerves, maybe now I can express why I am sad to see our beloved form go.
For me, it has something to do with the fact that shifting is integral to the druid identity. I might be the only one who reads this deeply into it our class mechanics, but something about the very act of shifting itself is what makes the druid class so special. It may cut us off from many of our abilities, but that's what druids are all about; we sacrifice our utility for the sake of gaining new abilities or empowering abilities we already have. Our identity as the "jack of all trades, master of none" class was one we could only lose (in favor of a "jack of all trades, master of all" identity) because our shifting prevents us from being a master of all; we can only be a master of one thing at a time. That concept, the concept of sacrificing most of our arsenal so that we can fulfill any roll, has been integral to the druid class for ages, and our forms are the visual representation of that concept.
Now, I'm not going to resort to appeal to tradition to make my point, for it is one of the logical fallacies that I find most objectionable. Besides, tradition has nothing to do with my grief over the loss of Tree of Life. No, this is not a matter of tradition; it is a matter of mindset. Perhaps I'm more affected than most because I am a long-time feral druid, but the class design of our class has created a very distinct mindset that I will not assume is universal to all druids, but I'm sure is shared by at least a few. The fact that every one of our specs becomes more viable when we shift into its respective form means that when I shift into an animal form (or plant form, as the case may be), no matter what form it is, it's a way of psyching myself up. It's a way of saying, "I'm ready for battle." Caster form is for non-combat situations--repairing, crafting, transportation, running around Dalaran aimlessly, etc. By shifting into a form, I am saying, "It's time to get serious; it's time to fight."
I can't help but think that Blizzard wanted to encourage that mentality in every druid spec. After all, in ye oldie days of vanilla WoW, feral combat was the only spec with shapeshifting spells. Hurricane was the final talent for balance druids until patch 1.8, and restoration druids didn't get their form until Burning Crusade. But Blizzard intentionally added these forms to specs that once did not have them, leading me to believe that they wanted druids to have the mentality of a shifting class, that they wanted us to equate being in a form to being ready to fight. Granted, Tree of Life had a rocky introduction when it was first introduced as a form with enough drawbacks to make people need to seriously consider whether they would use it or not. That rocky introduction was probably what doomed it to its current fate, for Blizzard wanted us to use the tree, so they removed any and all significant drawbacks for Wrath of the Lich King. This, however, made the tree more of an incidental ability than anything, since all it did now was limit our arsenal to healing spells and some balance spells and give us an aura that increased healing received by raid members; it was something we used because it objectively helped us perform better, but something we weren't all that excited to use.
But Tree of Life form fed into that very druid mentality of "shapeshifting = ready for combat" so well that we probably didn't notice that we were excited to use it, that was, until we were told it was going away. Tree of Life, like every druid form, takes on a life of its own once it is donned by the druid. We druids don't have just one personality like some classes, you see; we have many, and those many personalities come from our forms. They have their own sitting animations, their own lying down animations, their own dances (the bast part by far), and though they may not look better as we get better gear (though I went over ways they could look better as our gear got better long, long ago), they are part of our identity. Again, I don't mean to argue this from the perspective of appeal to tradition; all I mean to say is, Blizzard has made shifting an inexorable part of the druid class, and for them to take away one of our forms now just because they didn't give it better bonuses and make it more useful is to take away part of our identity.
And I really can't help but wonder: why was Moonkin Form spared? I don't mean to say that our balance brothers and sisters should suffer the same horrible fate that resto druids have, but Moonkin Form is in an almost identical situation to the one Tree of Life was in. It locks balance druids out of using half of their spells (their healing spells), gimping their utility, and if it were made into a temporary ability that would increase their damage done, it will fill the current hole in the balance arsenal of a throughput-increasing cooldown. The only difference between Moonkin Form and Tree of Life now is that Moonkin Form has more and better bonuses. Honestly, if that's the only thing that spared Moonkin Form the fate of Tree of Life, then I can't help being angry at Blizzard for letting Tree of Life reach the point where it wasn't exciting enough to keep around as a permanent form. And for their oversight, we have to suffer the loss of our beloved Twist-dancing form.
In short, I see shifting as an integral part of being a druid, as part of the druid mentality, and for Blizzard to change that now just seems unnecessary and callous. Yes, there were complaints about how the form locked us out of our offensive spells, but those could have been addressed by changing the form itself, rather than scrapping it, which was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. And to all the people who say they get tired of looking at the same form all the time (which, again, could be remedied), if that's how you feel, then you picked the wrong class... sorry.
Well, I'm glad I could work a bit of philosophy into my reasoning for why I'm sad to see Tree of Life go. I don't want this blog to become a cesspool of moaning and complaining, but I couldn't distract myself from this train of thought long enough to write about anything else. Hopefully now I'll be able to return to whatever usually distinguishes the posts on this blog as WoW Philosophized posts. Until then, thanks for bearing with me.
You might be wondering, if this blog is just a receptacle for my feelings about WoW, then why do I advertise it as a blog where I look at WoW from a philosophical perspective? I do that because most of my thoughts on this game tend to wax philosophical. But take a look at the subtitle of my blog: "The lengthy ramblings of a World of Warcraft player who happens to be into philosophy." I promise nothing about consistently writing about philosophy, but I try to do that as often as possible, because that's the draw I try to give this blog. But right now, I can't wax philosophical, because the grief I feel about tree form is just too great. I suppose I'm going through the depression stage of grief. I've been through the denial stage ("They would never make a change like that; that's just preposterous, and not at all like our class."), the anger stage ("Gah! Why! Argh!"), and the bargaining stage ("Can't they try to improve Nature's Swiftness? Then we'd have a good cooldown and wouldn't have to lose our form."), and now I'm in the depression stage. Perhaps I can move on to acceptance before patch 4.0 hits. Until then, allow me a bit of catharsis in today's post.
If you're wondering why these emotions are coming out now, you can thank Allison Robert, a writer for WoW Insider, whose recent column about the upcoming changes to druids--which was organized in sections by our forms; i.e., it had a "the bear" section, a "the cat" section--included this heading:
A moment of silence, please.
And I bowed my head, for I am still sad to see this form go. I don't think my first post on the subject did a good enough job of explaining why I feel this way, but then again, I was probably still in denial back then. Maybe now, now that my kvetching can't do anything to change Blizzard's mind, now that everyone's probably over the subject, now that my self-deprecating introduction is probably getting on your nerves, maybe now I can express why I am sad to see our beloved form go.
For me, it has something to do with the fact that shifting is integral to the druid identity. I might be the only one who reads this deeply into it our class mechanics, but something about the very act of shifting itself is what makes the druid class so special. It may cut us off from many of our abilities, but that's what druids are all about; we sacrifice our utility for the sake of gaining new abilities or empowering abilities we already have. Our identity as the "jack of all trades, master of none" class was one we could only lose (in favor of a "jack of all trades, master of all" identity) because our shifting prevents us from being a master of all; we can only be a master of one thing at a time. That concept, the concept of sacrificing most of our arsenal so that we can fulfill any roll, has been integral to the druid class for ages, and our forms are the visual representation of that concept.
Now, I'm not going to resort to appeal to tradition to make my point, for it is one of the logical fallacies that I find most objectionable. Besides, tradition has nothing to do with my grief over the loss of Tree of Life. No, this is not a matter of tradition; it is a matter of mindset. Perhaps I'm more affected than most because I am a long-time feral druid, but the class design of our class has created a very distinct mindset that I will not assume is universal to all druids, but I'm sure is shared by at least a few. The fact that every one of our specs becomes more viable when we shift into its respective form means that when I shift into an animal form (or plant form, as the case may be), no matter what form it is, it's a way of psyching myself up. It's a way of saying, "I'm ready for battle." Caster form is for non-combat situations--repairing, crafting, transportation, running around Dalaran aimlessly, etc. By shifting into a form, I am saying, "It's time to get serious; it's time to fight."
I can't help but think that Blizzard wanted to encourage that mentality in every druid spec. After all, in ye oldie days of vanilla WoW, feral combat was the only spec with shapeshifting spells. Hurricane was the final talent for balance druids until patch 1.8, and restoration druids didn't get their form until Burning Crusade. But Blizzard intentionally added these forms to specs that once did not have them, leading me to believe that they wanted druids to have the mentality of a shifting class, that they wanted us to equate being in a form to being ready to fight. Granted, Tree of Life had a rocky introduction when it was first introduced as a form with enough drawbacks to make people need to seriously consider whether they would use it or not. That rocky introduction was probably what doomed it to its current fate, for Blizzard wanted us to use the tree, so they removed any and all significant drawbacks for Wrath of the Lich King. This, however, made the tree more of an incidental ability than anything, since all it did now was limit our arsenal to healing spells and some balance spells and give us an aura that increased healing received by raid members; it was something we used because it objectively helped us perform better, but something we weren't all that excited to use.
But Tree of Life form fed into that very druid mentality of "shapeshifting = ready for combat" so well that we probably didn't notice that we were excited to use it, that was, until we were told it was going away. Tree of Life, like every druid form, takes on a life of its own once it is donned by the druid. We druids don't have just one personality like some classes, you see; we have many, and those many personalities come from our forms. They have their own sitting animations, their own lying down animations, their own dances (the bast part by far), and though they may not look better as we get better gear (though I went over ways they could look better as our gear got better long, long ago), they are part of our identity. Again, I don't mean to argue this from the perspective of appeal to tradition; all I mean to say is, Blizzard has made shifting an inexorable part of the druid class, and for them to take away one of our forms now just because they didn't give it better bonuses and make it more useful is to take away part of our identity.
And I really can't help but wonder: why was Moonkin Form spared? I don't mean to say that our balance brothers and sisters should suffer the same horrible fate that resto druids have, but Moonkin Form is in an almost identical situation to the one Tree of Life was in. It locks balance druids out of using half of their spells (their healing spells), gimping their utility, and if it were made into a temporary ability that would increase their damage done, it will fill the current hole in the balance arsenal of a throughput-increasing cooldown. The only difference between Moonkin Form and Tree of Life now is that Moonkin Form has more and better bonuses. Honestly, if that's the only thing that spared Moonkin Form the fate of Tree of Life, then I can't help being angry at Blizzard for letting Tree of Life reach the point where it wasn't exciting enough to keep around as a permanent form. And for their oversight, we have to suffer the loss of our beloved Twist-dancing form.
In short, I see shifting as an integral part of being a druid, as part of the druid mentality, and for Blizzard to change that now just seems unnecessary and callous. Yes, there were complaints about how the form locked us out of our offensive spells, but those could have been addressed by changing the form itself, rather than scrapping it, which was basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. And to all the people who say they get tired of looking at the same form all the time (which, again, could be remedied), if that's how you feel, then you picked the wrong class... sorry.
Well, I'm glad I could work a bit of philosophy into my reasoning for why I'm sad to see Tree of Life go. I don't want this blog to become a cesspool of moaning and complaining, but I couldn't distract myself from this train of thought long enough to write about anything else. Hopefully now I'll be able to return to whatever usually distinguishes the posts on this blog as WoW Philosophized posts. Until then, thanks for bearing with me.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Why we'll probably never have neutral playable races in WoW
Anne Stickney's most recent Know Your Lore post on WoW Insider about the Pandaren got me thinking about something I often wished for in my earlier years as a WoW player: neutral playable races. The idea appealed to my carebear sensibilities (I am not ashamed to admit that I am a carebear); I didn't care for PvP, and I was also interested in seeing what the quests were like on the other side. I also thought the precedent was already there; we had the goblins of the Steamwheedle Cartel, who are certainly willing to ally with anyone for the right price (this was way before we knew that goblins were going to be the new Horde race). The furblogs of the Timbermaw tribe were also willing to trust anyone who earned their trust, and more recently, the tuskar seem to not be big on this whole faction conflict thing. The pandaren, too, would probably make a good neutral race. So there are (and were) certainly enough races to make it happen, so I thought, why not let me experience both sides at the expense of being able to engage in PvP?
Well, as I became more experienced with the game, the reasons why Blizzard couldn't do such a thing became more and more apparent to me. The most obvious reason why we couldn't have neutral races in the game is that PvP is just too integral a part of the game. Aside from the inevitable regret of players who rolled a character of a neutral race and then wished they could get into PvP, but couldn't, there's also the issue of PvP being required for some PvE oriented parts of the game. The neutral races would either be cut off from completing What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been due to not being able to complete the achievements that require killing other players, or they would have to be made exempt from completing those achievements to get the meta, which would cause the players who play non-neutral races to cry foul. Either way, cutting off a player from PvP would probably result in some form of complaining about the holiday PvP achievements, in addition to the player regretting his choice when he wanted to try out PvP, so that makes the possibility unlikely.
But issues of game mechanics aren't that difficult to overcome, and the precedent for a solution already exists with a mechanic found in Grizzly Hills. When killing the Frostpaw and Redfang furblogs for the quest A Possible Link, killing furblogs from one tribe causes you to be covered in their blood, making furblogs of the other tribe neutral towards you. Of course, killing a furblog from the other tribe switches the effect. Perhaps this could be applied to players of neutral races, as well. Upon killing enough Horde or Alliance NPCs (killing players could count, too, but players on PvE realms would be hard pressed to find enough players of the opposite faction to kill for this purpose), the neutral character would gain a temporary debuff that would decay in real time and allow them to fight for one side in battlegrounds, though at the loss of being able to interact with the other faction. Fighting in battlegrounds could reset the debuff for convenience sake, and allowing time to pass without fighting anyone would cause the debuff to fade, returning the character to his/her previous neutral state.
Of course, while the mechanics might exist to support the inclusion of neutral races, the lore precedents, to my knowledge, do not. Of all the neutral races and factions out there in WoW and the Warcraft universe, the ones I know of fall into one of two categories, neither of which players would fit in to:
1. Races that keep mostly to themselves. These include the aforementioned Pandaren, who, though they do occasionally ally with a member of one faction for some reason or other, don't do so on a large enough scale or often enough to draw the ire of the other faction. Players of neutral races, though, would be doing numerous quests for the Alliance and the Horde, rather than keeping to themselves. That's the draw of playing a neutral race, after all. As such, players would not be keeping mostly to themselves (or, as a logical extension, limit themselves to doing quests only for neutral factions), and this would inevitably draw the ire of whatever faction the player wasn't doing quests for.
2. Factions that gives quests to players from both sides. This category included the goblins of the Steamwheedle Cartel, in addition to many other factions like them. These factions work with players from both factions without drawing the ire of the Alliance or the Horde, so why couldn't they serve as a precedent for neutral races? The key thing that would differentiate these factions from players of neutral races is that these factions accept help from members of both the Alliance and Horde without declaring an allegiance to one or the other. The reason neither the Alliance nor the Horde are hostile towards the factions that fall in this category is that they simply have no reason to be; the factions in this category never help out nor hinder the Alliance or Horde. We players, on the other hand, would be helping out the Alliance and the Horde whenever we do a quest for them, so we wouldn't be so exempted from the ire of the main factions.
Now, while there are some factions that do offer assistance of some kind to both the Alliance and the Horde, these factions don't provide the precedent for neutral playable races. The dragons of the Wyrmrest Accord, for example, helped both sides during the battle at Angrathar the Wrathgate, but they did that at a rare moment of Alliance/Horde cooperation. The Cenarion Circle might seem to help both factions, but they really enlist the help of players from both factions to fight for a cause that benefits both factions equally. The fact is that most factions are recruiting members of both sides to their cause or to help them, rather than providing that help to factions of both players. Thus the precedent doesn't exist.
Of course, that doesn't mean we'll never see these supposedly neutral races as playable races. The goblins were once completely neutral, and now a new cartel of goblins is joining the Horde. There could be other lore events that cause one of the neutral races (furblogs; pandaren, even?) to ally with one side for convenience and safety's sake (likely whichever side helps them first), so who knows? Maybe in WoW's fifth expansion pack, we'll see two new races we never thought would ally with one side become playable.
Well, as I became more experienced with the game, the reasons why Blizzard couldn't do such a thing became more and more apparent to me. The most obvious reason why we couldn't have neutral races in the game is that PvP is just too integral a part of the game. Aside from the inevitable regret of players who rolled a character of a neutral race and then wished they could get into PvP, but couldn't, there's also the issue of PvP being required for some PvE oriented parts of the game. The neutral races would either be cut off from completing What a Long, Strange Trip It's Been due to not being able to complete the achievements that require killing other players, or they would have to be made exempt from completing those achievements to get the meta, which would cause the players who play non-neutral races to cry foul. Either way, cutting off a player from PvP would probably result in some form of complaining about the holiday PvP achievements, in addition to the player regretting his choice when he wanted to try out PvP, so that makes the possibility unlikely.
But issues of game mechanics aren't that difficult to overcome, and the precedent for a solution already exists with a mechanic found in Grizzly Hills. When killing the Frostpaw and Redfang furblogs for the quest A Possible Link, killing furblogs from one tribe causes you to be covered in their blood, making furblogs of the other tribe neutral towards you. Of course, killing a furblog from the other tribe switches the effect. Perhaps this could be applied to players of neutral races, as well. Upon killing enough Horde or Alliance NPCs (killing players could count, too, but players on PvE realms would be hard pressed to find enough players of the opposite faction to kill for this purpose), the neutral character would gain a temporary debuff that would decay in real time and allow them to fight for one side in battlegrounds, though at the loss of being able to interact with the other faction. Fighting in battlegrounds could reset the debuff for convenience sake, and allowing time to pass without fighting anyone would cause the debuff to fade, returning the character to his/her previous neutral state.
Of course, while the mechanics might exist to support the inclusion of neutral races, the lore precedents, to my knowledge, do not. Of all the neutral races and factions out there in WoW and the Warcraft universe, the ones I know of fall into one of two categories, neither of which players would fit in to:
1. Races that keep mostly to themselves. These include the aforementioned Pandaren, who, though they do occasionally ally with a member of one faction for some reason or other, don't do so on a large enough scale or often enough to draw the ire of the other faction. Players of neutral races, though, would be doing numerous quests for the Alliance and the Horde, rather than keeping to themselves. That's the draw of playing a neutral race, after all. As such, players would not be keeping mostly to themselves (or, as a logical extension, limit themselves to doing quests only for neutral factions), and this would inevitably draw the ire of whatever faction the player wasn't doing quests for.
2. Factions that gives quests to players from both sides. This category included the goblins of the Steamwheedle Cartel, in addition to many other factions like them. These factions work with players from both factions without drawing the ire of the Alliance or the Horde, so why couldn't they serve as a precedent for neutral races? The key thing that would differentiate these factions from players of neutral races is that these factions accept help from members of both the Alliance and Horde without declaring an allegiance to one or the other. The reason neither the Alliance nor the Horde are hostile towards the factions that fall in this category is that they simply have no reason to be; the factions in this category never help out nor hinder the Alliance or Horde. We players, on the other hand, would be helping out the Alliance and the Horde whenever we do a quest for them, so we wouldn't be so exempted from the ire of the main factions.
Now, while there are some factions that do offer assistance of some kind to both the Alliance and the Horde, these factions don't provide the precedent for neutral playable races. The dragons of the Wyrmrest Accord, for example, helped both sides during the battle at Angrathar the Wrathgate, but they did that at a rare moment of Alliance/Horde cooperation. The Cenarion Circle might seem to help both factions, but they really enlist the help of players from both factions to fight for a cause that benefits both factions equally. The fact is that most factions are recruiting members of both sides to their cause or to help them, rather than providing that help to factions of both players. Thus the precedent doesn't exist.
Of course, that doesn't mean we'll never see these supposedly neutral races as playable races. The goblins were once completely neutral, and now a new cartel of goblins is joining the Horde. There could be other lore events that cause one of the neutral races (furblogs; pandaren, even?) to ally with one side for convenience and safety's sake (likely whichever side helps them first), so who knows? Maybe in WoW's fifth expansion pack, we'll see two new races we never thought would ally with one side become playable.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Playing without blogging?
Before any potential worries crop up from the title of this post, let me say that as of now, I have no plans to stop blogging in the foreseeable future. The same can't be said of Larisa of The Pink Pigtail Inn, though, who is expressing doubts about whether she can continue blogging. As sad as I would be to see her go, if she has to, it is not our position to tell her not to. It would be a shame, really, because of the great insight she has provided for as long as I have read her blog, and that post is no exception. The particular insight that inspired this post can be found in this paragraph:
On the other hand I can't help asking myself: will WoW be as fun and enjoyable if I don't blog about it? It's been an essential part of my gameplay for more than 2.5 years. The fact that I blog has changed the game to me. I think it helps me to see things I might not have noticed otherwise. It gives me an incentive for reflection and observation. And if I'm ever in doubt about anything - the game, my guild, myself, I have the entire blogging community to discuss with. The PPI has been my hideaway, my lookout and my outlet for so long. I can't even imagine how it would be to play WoW without it.
Larisa brings up a point that is probably somewhat universal to all bloggers, to varying degrees. As my blogging readers can attest, blogging changes the way you view whatever you blog about. Granted, it changes it in different ways for different bloggers; someone who writes in a role-playing blog will probably view the game differently from someone who writes a blog about raid advice, for they are looking for different sources of inspiration. A roleplayer will probably look for story-elements in WoW he can use to help write his story, while a raid blogger would probably examine raid encounters with a keen eye, looking for various ways he can increase the raid's likelihood of success.
As for me, this blog has really just encouraged me to think about the game in a way I already thought about it before (that is to say, philosophically); writing here just allows me to explore those thoughts, expand up them, and perhaps come to conclusions I might not have reached otherwise. (I frequently start writing a post without any idea where it's going to lead, then have some great revelation in the middle of writing it that tells me exactly where I want to take the topic in question.) I also blog for a myriad of other reasons--it helps me practice my writing, it helps me practice typing faster (I can type 70 words per minute thanks to the constant practice), it gives me something to do, I enjoy it--but the revelations it helps me achieve about WoW are the best part about writing it.
Now, because I use much more critical thought in writing this blog than I do in playing WoW, blogging doesn't really affect how I play the game all that much. But while blogging might not be integral to my playstyle, it is certainly integral to how I navigate the WoW blogosphere. Though I can always put any of my thoughts on someone's post in the comment section, sometimes the littlest thing I read in another blog will inspire a slew of ideas in me that aren't relevant enough to the original post to post in the comment section, so instead, I post them here (case in point: this post). Without this blog as a receptacle for those ideas, they'd simply remain in my head in a shapeless form, never coalescing into something profound or meaningful. The lengthiness of my writing also serves as an obstacle to limiting myself to commenting on other people's posts, for I know that many people are less than enthusiastic about reading lengthy responses to other people's posts, and if I didn't have this blog as a place to write my more lengthy compositions, I would doubtless write longer comments on other people's posts, which I imagine would not make everyone trying to read all the comments on a post happy.
So I suppose the take-away message about blogging and my relationship to it is that, though blogging doesn't play a big part in how I play WoW, it plays a big part in how I think about WoW. As long as I read other blogs--which I will continue to do as long as I play WoW, for reading WoW blogs falls under the domain of "being a WoW player", and I often say that being a WoW player is just as fun or sometimes more fun than actually playing WoW--those blogs will give me the food for thought that allows me to think critically about the game, and as long as I think critically about WoW, I will want some place to record my thoughts, and this blog is that place. So I suppose you could say I couldn't imagine playing WoW without blogging about it; the two just aren't directly intertwined.
On the other hand I can't help asking myself: will WoW be as fun and enjoyable if I don't blog about it? It's been an essential part of my gameplay for more than 2.5 years. The fact that I blog has changed the game to me. I think it helps me to see things I might not have noticed otherwise. It gives me an incentive for reflection and observation. And if I'm ever in doubt about anything - the game, my guild, myself, I have the entire blogging community to discuss with. The PPI has been my hideaway, my lookout and my outlet for so long. I can't even imagine how it would be to play WoW without it.
Larisa brings up a point that is probably somewhat universal to all bloggers, to varying degrees. As my blogging readers can attest, blogging changes the way you view whatever you blog about. Granted, it changes it in different ways for different bloggers; someone who writes in a role-playing blog will probably view the game differently from someone who writes a blog about raid advice, for they are looking for different sources of inspiration. A roleplayer will probably look for story-elements in WoW he can use to help write his story, while a raid blogger would probably examine raid encounters with a keen eye, looking for various ways he can increase the raid's likelihood of success.
As for me, this blog has really just encouraged me to think about the game in a way I already thought about it before (that is to say, philosophically); writing here just allows me to explore those thoughts, expand up them, and perhaps come to conclusions I might not have reached otherwise. (I frequently start writing a post without any idea where it's going to lead, then have some great revelation in the middle of writing it that tells me exactly where I want to take the topic in question.) I also blog for a myriad of other reasons--it helps me practice my writing, it helps me practice typing faster (I can type 70 words per minute thanks to the constant practice), it gives me something to do, I enjoy it--but the revelations it helps me achieve about WoW are the best part about writing it.
Now, because I use much more critical thought in writing this blog than I do in playing WoW, blogging doesn't really affect how I play the game all that much. But while blogging might not be integral to my playstyle, it is certainly integral to how I navigate the WoW blogosphere. Though I can always put any of my thoughts on someone's post in the comment section, sometimes the littlest thing I read in another blog will inspire a slew of ideas in me that aren't relevant enough to the original post to post in the comment section, so instead, I post them here (case in point: this post). Without this blog as a receptacle for those ideas, they'd simply remain in my head in a shapeless form, never coalescing into something profound or meaningful. The lengthiness of my writing also serves as an obstacle to limiting myself to commenting on other people's posts, for I know that many people are less than enthusiastic about reading lengthy responses to other people's posts, and if I didn't have this blog as a place to write my more lengthy compositions, I would doubtless write longer comments on other people's posts, which I imagine would not make everyone trying to read all the comments on a post happy.
So I suppose the take-away message about blogging and my relationship to it is that, though blogging doesn't play a big part in how I play WoW, it plays a big part in how I think about WoW. As long as I read other blogs--which I will continue to do as long as I play WoW, for reading WoW blogs falls under the domain of "being a WoW player", and I often say that being a WoW player is just as fun or sometimes more fun than actually playing WoW--those blogs will give me the food for thought that allows me to think critically about the game, and as long as I think critically about WoW, I will want some place to record my thoughts, and this blog is that place. So I suppose you could say I couldn't imagine playing WoW without blogging about it; the two just aren't directly intertwined.
Friday, October 1, 2010
On the origin of Alliance faction animosity
As you might already know if you have been reading my blog for a while, I hold no animosity towards the Horde and its players, and it seems I'm not the only one who doesn't, yet it seems the Horde holds a disproportionate amount of animosity towards us Alliance players. There has been quite of bit of speculation as to why this is, with explanations ranging from, "The Horde was once the minority, so they developed pride and resentment of the Alliance," to the surprisingly insightful, "The back stories revealed by their intro cinematics are much more about conflict and war than those of the Alliance." But either way, something about the imbalanced nature of faction animosity within the community makes me seriously wonder whether Blizzard could be doing a better job of encouraging it.
It's certainly no question that Blizzard does want there to be faction animosity in the game. That fact can plainly be seen by the fact that it's against the terms of use to engage in any attempt to speak with the other faction. Entry 9.B.viii states, "When engaging in Chat, you may not... Communicate directly with players who are playing characters aligned with the opposite faction (e.g. Horde communicating with Alliance or vice versa)..." Considering that verbal communication is what has allowed us human beings to progress as far as we have evolutionarily and is one of the defining aspects of our species, there are few more effective ways to dehumanize a group of people than to prevent communication with them (and, conversely, few more effective ways to humanize them then to allow communication with them). We can also see evidence of Blizzard trying to add some more faction animosity to the game by generally ramping up the Horde vs. Alliance conflict in Cataclysm by implementing quests that put the player at the front lines of this battle. Whether Blizzard is doing this to encourage war or to give the players the war they want is debatable, but if my poll is anything to go on, it appears the majority of players don't have any animosity for the other faction (I'm going to assume that those who play both sides don't have animosity for one of them, or else, why would they play both sides?)
So it seems Blizzard wants this animosity to exist, yet if the numbers are anything to go on, they haven't done that great of a job of making it happen. But perhaps the direct creation of animosity in the Alliance isn't their intention. Though I don't know much about lore, I know that when WoW first came out, the conventional wisdom was that the Alliance races all had their dark spots and weren't paragons of good, while most of the Horde races were just victims of unfortunate circumstances. It seems, however, that as WoW has continued, the Horde has been pulling ahead in terms of its place in the world. Sure, they've been through some hard times between everything Garrosh and Putress has brought on them, but the Horde players themselves have certainly moved up in the game. The fact that the faction balance is almost even should be evidence enough of that. Thus I propose a potentially radical theory: what if Blizzard wants the Alliance to feel like the victims now?
This possibility was brought to the forefront of my mind by one description of a quest on the Cataclysm beta:
The story [of the Worgen] from beginning to end is about unchecked, unbounded Forsaken aggression against a people who had never fought them, never attacked them, never tried to invade Lordaeron or claim lands held by them. The people of Gilneas had gone out of their way to avoid the Forsaken, and it was Sylvanas (and behind her, Garrosh Hellscream) directly attacking a neutral nation purely out of naked lust for conquest and territorial acquisition. By the time you're done playing a worgen through the starting zones, you will be ready to put orc babies on spikes. It may be the first time I've ever felt the factional hatred entirely from the game instead of from other players.
In my own comment on that post, I noted that the quest seems to parallel my own experiences with Horde animosity, which I have already detailed in the past. I also noted in my post that my experiences with Horde animosity had successfully created a bit of Alliance pride and Horde resentment in me; truth be told, they are the only thing that has ever managed to do so. Perhaps Blizzard has caught on to this phenomenon and is trying a new approach to create more Horde-oriented animosity within the Alliance, by making us the victims. I mean, it worked with the Horde, so it might work for us, too. Why would they want to create this Alliance animosity? Well, without animosity on both sides, any conflict between the two factions would be very one-sided, and the Alliance would likely view the whole thing as silly (as quite a few of us do now). Considering that the storyline of Cataclysm will be more focused on war than the storylines of expansions past, they need us to be ok with that war, and faction animosity is one way to make that happen.
It's certainly no question that Blizzard does want there to be faction animosity in the game. That fact can plainly be seen by the fact that it's against the terms of use to engage in any attempt to speak with the other faction. Entry 9.B.viii states, "When engaging in Chat, you may not... Communicate directly with players who are playing characters aligned with the opposite faction (e.g. Horde communicating with Alliance or vice versa)..." Considering that verbal communication is what has allowed us human beings to progress as far as we have evolutionarily and is one of the defining aspects of our species, there are few more effective ways to dehumanize a group of people than to prevent communication with them (and, conversely, few more effective ways to humanize them then to allow communication with them). We can also see evidence of Blizzard trying to add some more faction animosity to the game by generally ramping up the Horde vs. Alliance conflict in Cataclysm by implementing quests that put the player at the front lines of this battle. Whether Blizzard is doing this to encourage war or to give the players the war they want is debatable, but if my poll is anything to go on, it appears the majority of players don't have any animosity for the other faction (I'm going to assume that those who play both sides don't have animosity for one of them, or else, why would they play both sides?)
So it seems Blizzard wants this animosity to exist, yet if the numbers are anything to go on, they haven't done that great of a job of making it happen. But perhaps the direct creation of animosity in the Alliance isn't their intention. Though I don't know much about lore, I know that when WoW first came out, the conventional wisdom was that the Alliance races all had their dark spots and weren't paragons of good, while most of the Horde races were just victims of unfortunate circumstances. It seems, however, that as WoW has continued, the Horde has been pulling ahead in terms of its place in the world. Sure, they've been through some hard times between everything Garrosh and Putress has brought on them, but the Horde players themselves have certainly moved up in the game. The fact that the faction balance is almost even should be evidence enough of that. Thus I propose a potentially radical theory: what if Blizzard wants the Alliance to feel like the victims now?
This possibility was brought to the forefront of my mind by one description of a quest on the Cataclysm beta:
The story [of the Worgen] from beginning to end is about unchecked, unbounded Forsaken aggression against a people who had never fought them, never attacked them, never tried to invade Lordaeron or claim lands held by them. The people of Gilneas had gone out of their way to avoid the Forsaken, and it was Sylvanas (and behind her, Garrosh Hellscream) directly attacking a neutral nation purely out of naked lust for conquest and territorial acquisition. By the time you're done playing a worgen through the starting zones, you will be ready to put orc babies on spikes. It may be the first time I've ever felt the factional hatred entirely from the game instead of from other players.
In my own comment on that post, I noted that the quest seems to parallel my own experiences with Horde animosity, which I have already detailed in the past. I also noted in my post that my experiences with Horde animosity had successfully created a bit of Alliance pride and Horde resentment in me; truth be told, they are the only thing that has ever managed to do so. Perhaps Blizzard has caught on to this phenomenon and is trying a new approach to create more Horde-oriented animosity within the Alliance, by making us the victims. I mean, it worked with the Horde, so it might work for us, too. Why would they want to create this Alliance animosity? Well, without animosity on both sides, any conflict between the two factions would be very one-sided, and the Alliance would likely view the whole thing as silly (as quite a few of us do now). Considering that the storyline of Cataclysm will be more focused on war than the storylines of expansions past, they need us to be ok with that war, and faction animosity is one way to make that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
